Football & Sexual diversity

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Football & Sexual diversity

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 4 << First < 1 2 3 4

The Sash Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 05 Mar 15 1.43pm
Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.37pm Quote The Sash at 05 Mar 2015 1.26pm Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.11pm Quote The Sash at 05 Mar 2015 8.18am Quote Jimenez at 05 Mar 2015 2.00am Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.54am Quote Jimenez at 05 Mar 2015 1.27am LGBT & no mention of (I)meaning Intersex whatever that happens to be/is. So it should LGBTI to give it it's proper name. Anyway back on point Matt is right too many people are getting pigeon holed (no disrespect to pigeons)this in my opinion what causes a lot of these prejudices in the first place. As I said to the very keen student just the other day asking people about 'Gay Rights' "How many more rights do you need?' In some states Marriage perhaps? People do not pop out of the womb defining themselves as gay. The other side of the coin is that the law itself has differentiated, which is also a fixation on sexuality. How exactly do you get to a point where it doesn't, by 'not' talking about these issues? Increased visibility and discussion is the precise reason laws change and people are less likely to be excluded. Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.57am) Not in NY state as liberal as they come. Why don't they target their 'Gay rights' at those states that have Anti Gay laws or better still target countries like Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia which have none. I really feel this has nothing to do with football and is being foisted upon people. Its only soppy liberals like yourself that make it a Big(ger) deal than it actually is. Edited by Jimenez (05 Mar 2015 2.03am) The reason 'gay rights' gets more vociferous coverage and spotlight in things like football, church, politics et al here rather than. oh lets go for Iran, is simple. Its easier for those doing the hollering and shouting and far cosier and safer. A gay couple doesn't get entrance to a Clacton B&B or the worlds ugliest tranny doesn't get to try on a wedding dress in Addiscombe and its the second coming of Hitler, all the while people all over the world are jailed, beaten and killed for their sexuality by regimes that wouldn't take very kindly to your waving your rainbow flag in hot pants in downtown Tehran... Edited by The Sash (05 Mar 2015 10.19am) Russias attitude towards gays has been very widely condemned and there are groups abroad working with that community. Various campaigners have travelled over starting from years back only to get the s*** kicked out of them just like the local gay population. It's tremendously difficult to change attitudes in your own country let alone someone elses. The Uganda 'Kill The Gays' Bill was only dropped as a result of diplomatic and sanctions pressure. Government action is often the primary way to bring about political change in other nations. We see and know that already with issues across the board. As for the B&B, by this logic you'd be fine with a B&B having a 'No Blacks' policy then? If so, then fair enough, but do we really want to go back to that? I think it's useful that people know beforehand that they can purchase a service open to the public and receive it, rather be turned away for being fat, gay, christian, black and so on. Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.17pm) Err well no funny enough I wouldn't - you seem to be missing the point. Its far easier to target and to throw your hands in the air, create huge drama about prejudice and oppression and generally piss and whinge at a septuagenarian B&B owner in Weston Super Mare for telling you there is no room at the inn than it is to campaign in a country where prejudice doesn't mean having to spend the night at the Travelodge but sees you hacked or stoned to death simply because you are a man who likes a bit of cock. First world trivialities. As stated, there are significant efforts to combat these issues abroad but it's not easy. Arguably efforts other than governmental ones routinely fail or have the opposite 'reject the west' effect. Using silly or unrepresentative examples such as that tit in the frock doesn't pertain to reality. Most gay people obviously don't behave that way. What one needy individual does doesn't reflect on a whole group of people. Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.38pm) An exaggeration - obviously, however the general argument holds. The first world meaning of being 'oppressed' because of sexuality - we don't actually know the meaning of the word. As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014
Alert a moderator to this post

The Sash

Now residing in Epsom - How Posh 05 Mar 15 1.43pm

Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.37pm

Quote The Sash at 05 Mar 2015 1.26pm

Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.11pm

Quote The Sash at 05 Mar 2015 8.18am

Quote Jimenez at 05 Mar 2015 2.00am

Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.54am

Quote Jimenez at 05 Mar 2015 1.27am

LGBT & no mention of (I)meaning Intersex whatever that happens to be/is. So it should LGBTI to give it it's proper name. Anyway back on point Matt is right too many people are getting pigeon holed (no disrespect to pigeons)this in my opinion what causes a lot of these prejudices in the first place. As I said to the very keen student just the other day asking people about 'Gay Rights' "How many more rights do you need?'

In some states Marriage perhaps?

People do not pop out of the womb defining themselves as gay. The other side of the coin is that the law itself has differentiated, which is also a fixation on sexuality. How exactly do you get to a point where it doesn't, by 'not' talking about these issues? Increased visibility and discussion is the precise reason laws change and people are less likely to be excluded.

Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.57am)

Not in NY state as liberal as they come. Why don't they target their 'Gay rights' at those states that have Anti Gay laws or better still target countries like Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia which have none. I really feel this has nothing to do with football and is being foisted upon people. Its only soppy liberals like yourself that make it a Big(ger) deal than it actually is.

Edited by Jimenez (05 Mar 2015 2.03am)

The reason 'gay rights' gets more vociferous coverage and spotlight in things like football, church, politics et al here rather than. oh lets go for Iran, is simple. Its easier for those doing the hollering and shouting and far cosier and safer. A gay couple doesn't get entrance to a Clacton B&B or the worlds ugliest tranny doesn't get to try on a wedding dress in Addiscombe and its the second coming of Hitler, all the while people all over the world are jailed, beaten and killed for their sexuality by regimes that wouldn't take very kindly to your waving your rainbow flag in hot pants in downtown Tehran...

Edited by The Sash (05 Mar 2015 10.19am)

Russias attitude towards gays has been very widely condemned and there are groups abroad working with that community. Various campaigners have travelled over starting from years back only to get the s*** kicked out of them just like the local gay population.

It's tremendously difficult to change attitudes in your own country let alone someone elses. The Uganda 'Kill The Gays' Bill was only dropped as a result of diplomatic and sanctions pressure. Government action is often the primary way to bring about political change in other nations. We see and know that already with issues across the board.

As for the B&B, by this logic you'd be fine with a B&B having a 'No Blacks' policy then? If so, then fair enough, but do we really want to go back to that? I think it's useful that people know beforehand that they can purchase a service open to the public and receive it, rather be turned away for being fat, gay, christian, black and so on.

Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.17pm)

Err well no funny enough I wouldn't - you seem to be missing the point.

Its far easier to target and to throw your hands in the air, create huge drama about prejudice and oppression and generally piss and whinge at a septuagenarian B&B owner in Weston Super Mare for telling you there is no room at the inn than it is to campaign in a country where prejudice doesn't mean having to spend the night at the Travelodge but sees you hacked or stoned to death simply because you are a man who likes a bit of cock.

First world trivialities.

As stated, there are significant efforts to combat these issues abroad but it's not easy. Arguably efforts other than governmental ones routinely fail or have the opposite 'reject the west' effect.

Using silly or unrepresentative examples such as that tit in the frock doesn't pertain to reality. Most gay people obviously don't behave that way. What one needy individual does doesn't reflect on a whole group of people.

Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.38pm)

An exaggeration - obviously, however the general argument holds. The first world meaning of being 'oppressed' because of sexuality - we don't actually know the meaning of the word.

As far as the rules go, it's a website not a democracy - Hambo 3/6/2014

Alert a moderator to this post

imbored UK 05 Mar 15 1.56pm
Quote The Sash at 05 Mar 2015 1.43pm Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.37pm Quote The Sash at 05 Mar 2015 1.26pm Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.11pm Quote The Sash at 05 Mar 2015 8.18am Quote Jimenez at 05 Mar 2015 2.00am Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.54am Quote Jimenez at 05 Mar 2015 1.27am LGBT & no mention of (I)meaning Intersex whatever that happens to be/is. So it should LGBTI to give it it's proper name. Anyway back on point Matt is right too many people are getting pigeon holed (no disrespect to pigeons)this in my opinion what causes a lot of these prejudices in the first place. As I said to the very keen student just the other day asking people about 'Gay Rights' "How many more rights do you need?' In some states Marriage perhaps? People do not pop out of the womb defining themselves as gay. The other side of the coin is that the law itself has differentiated, which is also a fixation on sexuality. How exactly do you get to a point where it doesn't, by 'not' talking about these issues? Increased visibility and discussion is the precise reason laws change and people are less likely to be excluded. Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.57am) Not in NY state as liberal as they come. Why don't they target their 'Gay rights' at those states that have Anti Gay laws or better still target countries like Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia which have none. I really feel this has nothing to do with football and is being foisted upon people. Its only soppy liberals like yourself that make it a Big(ger) deal than it actually is. Edited by Jimenez (05 Mar 2015 2.03am) The reason 'gay rights' gets more vociferous coverage and spotlight in things like football, church, politics et al here rather than. oh lets go for Iran, is simple. Its easier for those doing the hollering and shouting and far cosier and safer. A gay couple doesn't get entrance to a Clacton B&B or the worlds ugliest tranny doesn't get to try on a wedding dress in Addiscombe and its the second coming of Hitler, all the while people all over the world are jailed, beaten and killed for their sexuality by regimes that wouldn't take very kindly to your waving your rainbow flag in hot pants in downtown Tehran... Edited by The Sash (05 Mar 2015 10.19am) Russias attitude towards gays has been very widely condemned and there are groups abroad working with that community. Various campaigners have travelled over starting from years back only to get the s*** kicked out of them just like the local gay population. It's tremendously difficult to change attitudes in your own country let alone someone elses. The Uganda 'Kill The Gays' Bill was only dropped as a result of diplomatic and sanctions pressure. Government action is often the primary way to bring about political change in other nations. We see and know that already with issues across the board. As for the B&B, by this logic you'd be fine with a B&B having a 'No Blacks' policy then? If so, then fair enough, but do we really want to go back to that? I think it's useful that people know beforehand that they can purchase a service open to the public and receive it, rather be turned away for being fat, gay, christian, black and so on. Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.17pm) Err well no funny enough I wouldn't - you seem to be missing the point. Its far easier to target and to throw your hands in the air, create huge drama about prejudice and oppression and generally piss and whinge at a septuagenarian B&B owner in Weston Super Mare for telling you there is no room at the inn than it is to campaign in a country where prejudice doesn't mean having to spend the night at the Travelodge but sees you hacked or stoned to death simply because you are a man who likes a bit of cock. First world trivialities. As stated, there are significant efforts to combat these issues abroad but it's not easy. Arguably efforts other than governmental ones routinely fail or have the opposite 'reject the west' effect. Using silly or unrepresentative examples such as that tit in the frock doesn't pertain to reality. Most gay people obviously don't behave that way. What one needy individual does doesn't reflect on a whole group of people. Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.38pm) An exaggeration - obviously, however the general argument holds. The first world meaning of being 'oppressed' because of sexuality - we don't actually know the meaning of the word. If any individual is ejected from establishments because of sexuality in the modern example or race in the past, they have just as much right to stand up for the society they want to live in, as the business shunning them. I also think that efforts such as "kick racism out of football" and the recent steps into tackling homophobia are not universally negative or unwanted. We can all say 'people have it much worse elsewhere' but that could be used to tell absolutely everyone to stop addressing concerns closer to their sphere of influence, invalidating 99% of the threads here. When the black guy in France was kicked off the train and racially abused did we say "man up, extreme racism exists in some areas of the world, concentrate on that" or did we instead express that we have no time for such behaviour from football 'fans'. One other point, people are under just as much obligation to help others regardless of their own race, gender or sexuality. Arbitrary characteristics. It's not solely the role of women to try to address gender inequality around the world for instance. Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 2.37pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

imbored

UK 05 Mar 15 1.56pm

Quote The Sash at 05 Mar 2015 1.43pm

Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.37pm

Quote The Sash at 05 Mar 2015 1.26pm

Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.11pm

Quote The Sash at 05 Mar 2015 8.18am

Quote Jimenez at 05 Mar 2015 2.00am

Quote imbored at 05 Mar 2015 1.54am

Quote Jimenez at 05 Mar 2015 1.27am

In some states Marriage perhaps?

Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.57am)

Edited by Jimenez (05 Mar 2015 2.03am)

Edited by The Sash (05 Mar 2015 10.19am)

Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.17pm)

Err well no funny enough I wouldn't - you seem to be missing the point.

First world trivialities.

As stated, there are significant efforts to combat these issues abroad but it's not easy. Arguably efforts other than governmental ones routinely fail or have the opposite 'reject the west' effect.

Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 1.38pm)

An exaggeration - obviously, however the general argument holds. The first world meaning of being 'oppressed' because of sexuality - we don't actually know the meaning of the word.

If any individual is ejected from establishments because of sexuality in the modern example or race in the past, they have just as much right to stand up for the society they want to live in, as the business shunning them. I also think that efforts such as "kick racism out of football" and the recent steps into tackling homophobia are not universally negative or unwanted.

We can all say 'people have it much worse elsewhere' but that could be used to tell absolutely everyone to stop addressing concerns closer to their sphere of influence, invalidating 99% of the threads here. When the black guy in France was kicked off the train and racially abused did we say "man up, extreme racism exists in some areas of the world, concentrate on that" or did we instead express that we have no time for such behaviour from football 'fans'.

One other point, people are under just as much obligation to help others regardless of their own race, gender or sexuality. Arbitrary characteristics. It's not solely the role of women to try to address gender inequality around the world for instance.

Edited by imbored (05 Mar 2015 2.37pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Mar 15 4.11pm
Quote Beaverwilly at 04 Mar 2015 4.50am Why can't we just enjoy football without bringing gender, race, sexuality etc. into it? Personally I couldn't care less if you are tall, short, fat, thin, white, black, gay, straight... whatever just keep it to yourself as will I and concentrate on the sport which is why we are all here after all. You might not have an issue, I don't either, but it seems suspicious that there are no out gay players, and the game clearly has an issue with racism and a problem with gender (see comments arising from female commentators, female officals and the womens game in general). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Mar 15 4.11pm

Quote Beaverwilly at 04 Mar 2015 4.50am

Why can't we just enjoy football without bringing gender, race, sexuality etc. into it?

Personally I couldn't care less if you are tall, short, fat, thin, white, black, gay, straight... whatever just keep it to yourself as will I and concentrate on the sport which is why we are all here after all.

You might not have an issue, I don't either, but it seems suspicious that there are no out gay players, and the game clearly has an issue with racism and a problem with gender (see comments arising from female commentators, female officals and the womens game in general).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Dweeb East London 06 Mar 15 5.30am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Mar 2015 4.11pm Quote Beaverwilly at 04 Mar 2015 4.50am Why can't we just enjoy football without bringing gender, race, sexuality etc. into it? Personally I couldn't care less if you are tall, short, fat, thin, white, black, gay, straight... whatever just keep it to yourself as will I and concentrate on the sport which is why we are all here after all. You might not have an issue, I don't either, but it seems suspicious that there are no out gay players, and the game clearly has an issue with racism and a problem with gender (see comments arising from female commentators, female officals and the womens game in general). There are in fact a large number of prejudicies within football still. It has taken over 40 years to get where we are with race and lets he honest we are still not 100% there. Nonetheless, how many Asian players or officials are in the UK professional game? I can barely remember seeing more than a handful of Asian officals in my 50 years of watching Palace, yet approximately 5% of UK population is Asian, as opposed to 2% gay. It is invariably when football uspporters feel "uneasy" which must also include an element of "mob behaviour" that issues arise. There is little if any issue within rugby about gay players or officals. I wouldn't want to argue with either Johnny Wilkinson or Gareth Thomas, let alone Clint Hill / Nigel "The Throat" Pearson! Taking the bungy jump since 1964. Never to see John Jackson in a shirt again Sorry to see Lee Hills go, did we ever see Alex Marrow? We did January 2013
Alert a moderator to this post

Dweeb

East London 06 Mar 15 5.30am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Mar 2015 4.11pm

Quote Beaverwilly at 04 Mar 2015 4.50am

Why can't we just enjoy football without bringing gender, race, sexuality etc. into it?

There are in fact a large number of prejudicies within football still. It has taken over 40 years to get where we are with race and lets he honest we are still not 100% there. Nonetheless, how many Asian players or officials are in the UK professional game? I can barely remember seeing more than a handful of Asian officals in my 50 years of watching Palace, yet approximately 5% of UK population is Asian, as opposed to 2% gay.

It is invariably when football uspporters feel "uneasy" which must also include an element of "mob behaviour" that issues arise. There is little if any issue within rugby about gay players or officals. I wouldn't want to argue with either Johnny Wilkinson or Gareth Thomas, let alone Clint Hill / Nigel "The Throat" Pearson!

Taking the bungy jump since 1964. Never to see John Jackson in a shirt again

Sorry to see Lee Hills go, did we ever see Alex Marrow? We did January 2013

Alert a moderator to this post

imbored UK 06 Mar 15 4.34pm
Quote Dweeb at 06 Mar 2015 5.30am Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Mar 2015 4.11pm Quote Beaverwilly at 04 Mar 2015 4.50am Why can't we just enjoy football without bringing gender, race, sexuality etc. into it? Personally I couldn't care less if you are tall, short, fat, thin, white, black, gay, straight... whatever just keep it to yourself as will I and concentrate on the sport which is why we are all here after all. You might not have an issue, I don't either, but it seems suspicious that there are no out gay players, and the game clearly has an issue with racism and a problem with gender (see comments arising from female commentators, female officals and the womens game in general). There are in fact a large number of prejudicies within football still. It has taken over 40 years to get where we are with race and lets he honest we are still not 100% there. Nonetheless, how many Asian players or officials are in the UK professional game? I can barely remember seeing more than a handful of Asian officals in my 50 years of watching Palace, yet approximately 5% of UK population is Asian, as opposed to 2% gay. It is invariably when football uspporters feel "uneasy" which must also include an element of "mob behaviour" that issues arise. There is little if any issue within rugby about gay players or officals. I wouldn't want to argue with either Johnny Wilkinson or Gareth Thomas, let alone Clint Hill / Nigel "The Throat" Pearson! A few rational, common sense posts in a row. You're spoiling us!
Alert a moderator to this post

imbored

UK 06 Mar 15 4.34pm

Quote Dweeb at 06 Mar 2015 5.30am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Mar 2015 4.11pm

Quote Beaverwilly at 04 Mar 2015 4.50am

Why can't we just enjoy football without bringing gender, race, sexuality etc. into it?

A few rational, common sense posts in a row. You're spoiling us!

Alert a moderator to this post

jpiedra 11 Mar 15 10.33am
Thanks for your indication Quote MileFan at 03 Mar 2015 9.41pm Dear Sir, may I suggest you point your colleagues at the LGBT associations towards Brighton and Hove Albion football club
Alert a moderator to this post

jpiedra

11 Mar 15 10.33am

Thanks for your indication

Quote MileFan at 03 Mar 2015 9.41pm

Dear Sir,

may I suggest you point your colleagues at the LGBT associations towards Brighton and Hove Albion football club

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 4 << First < 1 2 3 4

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Football & Sexual diversity

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors